Talk:Church of Reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Church of Reality article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Church of Reality, has edited Wikipedia as
Marcperkel (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Unprotection and recreation

An independent 3rd party has offered to try to write a good article, and I would like to see that effort proceed. Therefore, I have unprotected the article. I think it is possible that, with the passage of time, there has been sufficient additional press coverage to merit an article. I take no position on that, I am just saying that it is possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

Someone removed the "hangon" template, and I am afraid this will be speedied again before the 3rd party gets the chance to work on it. Shouldn't that template remain for now?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objection to it being re-added if you think its needed. I removed it because that template leaves the article in the speedy deletion category, which I was concerned might increase the likelihood that someone would come along and re-delete the article. Shell babelfish 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Searches

Find sources: Church of Reality — news, books, scholar

[edit] Sandbox

User:FrostyBytes created a stub for this article with information about notability, which could be added to the article. It is in his sandbox. ~ PaulC/T+ 03:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem with User:FrostyBytes/Sandbox (and to a large extent, with Church of Reality too), is that it doesn't say much that is worthwhile. The whole Notability section should be deleted -- encyclopedia articles should not include sections on why their subject is notable enough to have an article. That's a meta-discussion best held on a talk page or in WP space. The bit about on what dates they applied for and got various legal documents is pure trivia. I'm all for a real article about CoR, but so far, nobody has written anything that's worth reading. I would like to see things like:
  1. Relationship with other religions.
  2. More about the theology of the CofR
  3. Commentary on the CofR by theological writers (or even the lay press).
  4. Don't just tell me that there was an interview on Air America, summarize what was said.
The current article(s) devote more space to talking about the details of how they got their 501(c)(3) certificate than about their theology. If that's really all there is to say about the CofR, then it's not worth having an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hostile Environment

The plethora of warnings here creates an only hostile environment that actively discourages people from adding to this article. If you want people to post information about the Church of Reality then your going to have to drop the hostilities towards us. The Church of Reality web site has nearly 700 pages of material that fully describes our religious philosophy. So the material is there. And before this subject was deleted and banned for 3 years there was some good information posted. But that's not going to happen again until and unless writers are welcomed rather than driven away. --Marcperkel (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, there is only the notability tag and a pair of stub notices, each of which explicitly encourages contributions. Of course, presentation which has the effect of disinclining potential encyclopedic contributors should be altered - perhaps this suggestion could be made at the Village pump?
An in-depth examination of religious philosophy is necessary but not sufficient for a good article on the CoR - there must also be significant coverage by external sources. This article certainly needs improvement and expansion, but a quick check online indicated that relevant sources exist, so it is only a matter of adding them. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 09:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Since this is a "CoR" article, let's be "realistic." :) This article has Jimbo's favor. It will be fine. Sethie (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure?

To me, obscure implies arcane, very old and hidden by the passage of time. Is that the case, or do you simply mean "little known"? bd2412 T 08:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "obscure" carries for you different connotations than it does for me. Dictionary.com defines it as inconspicuous or unnoticeable, which would seem to apply. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I just think perhaps there is a better word. Is the Church of Reality "inconspicuous or unnoticeable"? bd2412 T 21:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
On the scale of world religions and influence on the field of religious philosophy, yes; it is "of little or no prominence" and "far from public notice". If you have a better way of characterizing CoR, by all means introduce it to the article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)